I, no doubt like many others, have watched uncle Harry twittering on about it not being about the football team and it being for the good of the City and smiled. For me personally your first paragraph animates exactly why Uncle Harry and his City suporting mates can only see £ note signs, big signings and rivaling Man U in the long term. What they could well end up with though, is insecurity, a failing costly Sports Village draining their resources and as you say eventually, heaven forbid, the gates locked again!

Too much power in one place takes away all the principle of equality the Stadium stood for in the first place. Why can't they be satisfied with the current situation where they are doing well in the Championship in a Stadium that under the current regime sees them with security of tenure for decades. These City fans come on here over the months having a go and poking fun at Rugby League and then pretend its not about football, of course it is, they want to rule the roost and be our landlords!

The Stadium doesn't make much for the Council is one big arguement but it doesn't cost the rate payers anything either does it. One councillor told me the other day in the Guildhall that the value of the land concerned at current industrial development or housing land prices, plus the Stadium, was nearer £60m, and these City fans want the Council to gift all that to a Businessman? The District auditor and the audit commission would close the Council Down!

Simple question for all City fans in this discussion is if the boot was on the other foot and Pearson wanted the Stadium gifted to him to act as collateral for a sorting village he wanted to build would they think it was a good idea if Hull Fc owned the place and they were our tenants? Its not about the good of the City with most of them I know , they openly admit that its about dominating the sporting scene in Hull.

The funny thing is, you probably believe that the Boulevard, with no safety certificate on low value land really had increased in value from its previous valuation. to precisely that of their outstanding debt.


As for City, yes we walked in for better than free. FC had been sat waiting City because they couldn't generate the finances required. In truth, neither club could then or could now operate the stadium alone, it's another thing that makes the bitter, small mindedness of some on here even sillier.

Both clubs and the individuals in charge of them, received a freeby share far in excess of that seemingly offered recently as a start for negotiations.

If either Club went bust or left, the Council could potentially be stuck with a massive burden of a sports stadium with no occupants. A far greater gamble than the more recent suggestion. It's also true that the previous 'gift' benefitted far fewer people than the more recent suggestion.

When the KC was discussed, FC fans were the most vocal in keeping it smaller than initially proposed. Had they listened then, the stadium would already be of a size for a fraction of the cost and negating some of the current argument. It wasn't the Government, but Sport England in the form of Trevor Brooking that argued for a smaller stadium after representations were made.

And now, we seem people aiming at what's left of their feet and trying to blame others for the shootings.

If only you'd read what I'd put you could have saved yourself writing all that nonsense.

What people forget is that not every tax payer in the City like sport
And find it hard that a man with a lot of assets want a Stadium for next to nothing
I will keep saying if you give a gift you give it with NO string attached

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. I think the claims f it being a gift are, on the face of it, a nonsense. Although there have been a number of examples where huge sums have been given to various causes, so it's not without precedent for Mr Allam.

I also think that Mr Allam's got to take his share of the blame for why discussions are in the state they're in.

rlIndeedrl

Mrs B also produced this rlCautionary Talerl a few months back. Might be worth PMing to Blind Uncle Harry.

20/20 vision here, that's been discussed a long time ago when Mr Allam first expressed an interest in the football club.
I'm not the one blinkered and refusing to take on board the options. I also seem to have more faith in the Council's abilities than some of you do. Such experiences as have been highlighted can be accommodated in decent contracts.

I just hope the ERYC use the same bargaining tactic as Mr geraghty or HCC and HFC are screwed.

On the contrary. The two Allams were in a three hour meeting with Cllr Geraghty and Cllr Bayes. Also present were three "vastly experienced" officers who are currently negotiating the Siemens deal.

The Allams were unwilling/unable to present a business plan, stating the freehold had to be signed over to them before discussions could begin. They refused to show the "plans" they had drawn up saying they cost "£3000 and belonged to them". In a nutshell, there [iwere[/i no proposals on the table to discuss. What is the council supposed to do?

Obviously, they declined to give him the stadium, offered alternative land in which Allam is not interested, then Allam gives an interview in the Mail stating he has uttered his last word on the subject.

That's the end of it. Apart from Allam's droned on ever since. A man of his word, you see.

It's not the council who refused to negotiate. It's Allam. Ball's in his court, so wind your neck in.

And still highly relevant, of course.


What bargaining tactic would this be?

Ouch.

Nothing contrary at all, the party and Council leaders published views are contrary to the recent opinion of the one person.

According to others, the matters aren't quite as published. If the land offered is an example of the attitude, it was land that was discounted for the stadium as it wouldn't get planning permission. Some offer there eh? Yet it's offered in support of the Council's attitude.

Both parties are guilty of washing their smalls on public, but responding to press questions is hardly "droning on". The same could be said of the Councillor, whose statement seems to be a transcript of his previous radio interview, that was followed by Adam Pearson who in his diplomatic style, gave a different account which pointed to elements of the statement that differed from his understanding.

A few on here seem to have made their minds up that it's simply Council good, allam's bad. If only life was so simple.